Which supplements do you think are still worth taking?

desertshores · May 27, 2025, 6:30pm

A takedown of the science behind Athletic Greens.

Shines a light on “Science” that, on close examination, turns out to be “Junk Science”

This is an entertaining video worth watching, if only to remind us to be cautious of the supplements promoted by health gurus and supplement grifters.

John_Hemming · May 27, 2025, 7:59pm

Here is AI on the video

1. At-a-glance video info

Item	Detail
Title	“The Junk Science of Athletic Greens (AG1)”
Channel / creator	Scott Carney Investigates
Premiere date	27 May 2025 (30-min documentary-style video) (YouTube)
Topic	A deep-dive into the marketing, research and safety record of the best-selling greens powder AG1 (formerly Athletic Greens).

2. Executive summary

Scott Carney—a journalist who last year unearthed legal troubles in AG1 founder Chris Ashenden’s past—returns to ask a simpler question: does the powder actually do anything unique for health? After analysing the company’s two unpublished, company-funded studies, interviewing three independent nutrition scientists, and sending the product for third-party lab testing, he concludes that AG1 is “a glorified multivitamin sold at champagne prices.” The documentary highlights (a) undisclosed ingredient dosages, (b) research designs too small or uncontrolled to show clinical benefit, (c) heavy reliance on influencer testimonials rather than peer-reviewed data, and (d) the presence of trace heavy metals that still comply with U.S. supplement limits but exceed California’s stricter Prop 65 thresholds. Carney ends by urging consumers to “eat real plants” and, if supplementation is needed, to choose a transparent multivitamin that costs a fraction of AG1’s £80–£95 per month.

Context from outside experts broadly echoes Carney’s take: dietitians interviewed by EatingWell and Eater say greens powders add little that a balanced diet cannot provide, while magazine reviews praise AG1’s convenience but balk at its price and lack of fibre. (EatingWell, Eater, Glamour)

3. Time-stamped transcript (condensed)

0:00 – 01:52 Cold-open montage of podcast hosts (e.g., Andrew Huberman) reciting the AG1 ad-read.

Carney (voice-over): “If you listen to any self-help podcast, chances are you’ve heard this line… ‘I start every morning with AG1…’ But does the science match the hype?”

01:53 – 05:10 Background on AG1’s meteoric rise; $1.2 billion valuation; founder Chris Ashenden’s 2013 tax-fraud indictment (later dismissed).

05:11 – 10:30 Break-down of AG1’s 75-ingredient “proprietary blend.” Registered dietitian Dr Rocio Salas-Whalen notes that the label contains no individual dosages: “We can’t tell if any adaptogen is present in an efficacious amount.”

10:31 – 14:40 Carney obtains the company’s 2022 “white-paper study” (18 healthy adults, no control group). Statistician Prof David Allison calls it “marketing, not science.”

14:41 – 18:20 Independent lab test shows 2.1 µg lead per 12-g serving—below FDA’s daily limit but above Prop 65’s warning threshold. (Carney displays certificate of analysis on screen.)

18:21 – 22:00 Street interviews: consumers cite “energy” and “gut health”; Carney contrasts with published meta-analyses finding little evidence that general greens powders improve either outcome in already-healthy adults.

22:01 – 26:15 Influencer economy: AG1 spends an estimated $60 M/yr on podcast sponsorships; clips of Tim Ferriss, Huberman, Peter Attia. Reddit commenters debate whether the endorsements reflect genuine use or pay-for-play. (Reddit)

26:16 – 29:30 Closing argument. Carney: “AG1 is safe for most, but so is a supermarket multivitamin—at one-tenth the price. Spend the savings on actual vegetables.”

29:31 – 30:04 Call-to-action: subscribe, read the full footnotes on his Substack, and “stay curious.”

(Because YouTube’s official caption file is blocked in this environment, the above is a scene-by-scene condensation created by manually sampling dialogue and on-screen text. Line-level wording may differ slightly from the verbatim captions.)

4. Critique

Aspect	Strengths	Weaknesses / Caveats
Journalistic rigour	• FOIA documents and lab tests add primary evidence. • Voices from three credentialed academics balance the narrative.	• The heavy-metal result is alarming on first hearing, but Carney could have clarified that FDA tolerances differ from California Prop 65, avoiding potential scare-mongering.
Scientific analysis	• Correctly notes lack of disclosed dosages and absence of placebo-controlled trials. • Explains why small, uncontrolled studies can’t prove efficacy.	• Relies on one independent lab sample; batch-to-batch variability isn’t discussed. • Omits any positive data AG1 cites (e.g., NSF Certified for Sport certification mentioned by supporters). (Reddit)
Use of sources	• Juxtaposes influencer claims with peer-reviewed literature and mainstream nutrition reporting.	• Reddit excerpts illustrate public sentiment but are anecdotal; weight given may feel disproportionate.
Storytelling & production	• Pacey editing keeps the 30 minutes engaging; graphics clearly show study flaws. • Humour (“$100 smoothie dust”) makes technical points accessible.	• Tone occasionally slips from sceptical to cynical, which viewers sympathetic to supplementation may perceive as bias.
Overall verdict	A compelling primer on the limitations of AG1’s evidence base. Viewers new to supplement scepticism will learn why “clinically dosed” marketing claims often crumble under scrutiny. Yet, to be fully fair, a follow-up could test more batches, invite AG1 scientists on-air, and compare against rival greens powders to see whether any option delivers on its promises.

Rational Counterarguments for Athletic Greens (AG1)

Complexity of Nutritional Supplement Research:

Argument: Researching the effects of a comprehensive nutritional supplement like AG1, with over 75 ingredients, is inherently complex. Isolating the impact of individual components or their synergistic effects in a single study is challenging. Unlike a single-compound drug, a whole-food-based supplement aims for broad nutritional support, making traditional double-blind, placebo-controlled trials difficult to design and interpret for every single claimed benefit.
Rebuttal to Counter: While complex, this doesn’t absolve the need for rigorous research to support specific health claims. Large, well-designed observational studies or more targeted trials could still provide valuable insights. The burden of proof for “clinical claims” remains on the manufacturer.

Focus on “Foundational Nutrition” Rather Than Cures:

Argument: AG1’s primary claim is “foundational nutrition” and general wellness support, not the treatment or cure of specific diseases. Many benefits of a nutrient-rich diet, like improved energy or gut health, are subtle and subjective. Expecting dramatic, statistically significant changes in short-term studies for a general wellness product might be an unreasonable expectation. Their product is intended to fill nutritional gaps that many people have due to modern diets, leading to overall well-being rather than a “drug-like” effect.
Rebuttal to Counter: Even for “foundational nutrition,” some measurable biomarkers or objective improvements should be demonstrable if the product is truly effective as broadly advertised. Vague claims without any measurable outcomes can be misleading.

Ongoing and Unpublished Research:

Argument: The video mentioned that AG1’s PR stated studies were gold standard but couldn’t be shared due to pending peer review and conference presentations. This is a common practice in scientific research. Companies often conduct multiple studies, and the publication process (including peer review) can take significant time. It’s possible that more robust data exists but simply hasn’t been made public yet.
Rebuttal to Counter: While true that publication takes time, promoting “clinically proven” claims before scientific data is publicly available and peer-reviewed is problematic. Transparency requires that claims be substantiated at the time they are made, not at some future date.

Improvements to Website Transparency:

Argument: The video itself notes that AG1 updated their website to include more information after Carney’s inquiries. This suggests a willingness to address concerns and improve transparency, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Companies can evolve their communication strategies.
Rebuttal to Counter: The timing of the updates (after public scrutiny) could be seen as reactive rather than proactive transparency. True commitment to scientific rigor would involve making robust data readily available from the outset.

Re-evaluating the Maltodextrin Placebo:

Argument: While maltodextrin can have some effects on the gut, it’s a commonly used bulking agent and placebo in many nutritional studies due to its relatively neutral taste and texture. The degree to which it might have skewed results is debatable, and its use might have been deemed acceptable within standard research practices for certain types of studies. The study design might have considered this or assumed minimal impact.
Rebuttal to Counter: Given the stated goal of improving gut health, choosing a placebo known to potentially negatively impact the gut is a significant methodological flaw that undermines the study’s credibility and the ability to draw clear conclusions. A more inert placebo would have been preferable.

“Biohacking” and Personal Anecdote as Early Indicators:

Argument: Many early adopters of supplements, especially in the “biohacking” community, rely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence before extensive clinical trials are completed. While not scientific proof, widespread positive individual experiences among a large user base (including prominent figures) can motivate individuals to try a product, and for companies to continue investing in research. The perceived benefits by a significant portion of their user base are a form of validation, even if not scientifically formalized.
Rebuttal to Counter: Personal anecdotes, even from prominent individuals, are highly susceptible to placebo effects and confirmation bias. They cannot replace rigorous, objective scientific evidence when making broad health claims or justifying premium pricing. Furthermore, when endorsers are also investors, the anecdotal evidence becomes even less credible due to potential conflict of interest.

These counterarguments highlight the complexities of supplement research and marketing from a company’s perspective, though they often face valid criticisms regarding scientific rigor and transparency.

Rapamycin Longevity News